Henson v. Capital Seniorcare Ventures, LLC et al

Filing
54

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiff's 38 Motion to remand is granted and denying as moot plaintiff's request for a hearing on her motion to remand; further denying plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs and separate defendant Column Guaranteed, LLC's 7 Motion to dismss remains pending for the State Court to resolve; further case shall be remanded forthwith to the Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on May 2, 2013. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
LAURA E. HENSON, as Power
of Attorney for and on behalf
of BARBARA J. SIMON
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:13-CV-2018
CAPITAL SENIORCARE VENTURES, LLC;
COLUMN GUARANTEED, LLC; SLC PROPERTIES, LLC;
SLC PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC; SLC PROPERTY
INVESTORS, LLC; EOR-ARK, LLC; VAJ, LLC;
SLC OPERATIONS MASTER TENANT, LLC;
SLC OPERATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC; SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITIES OF ARKANSAS, LLC; SLC PROFESSIONAL
HOLDINGS, LLC; SLC PROFESSIONALS, LLC;
SENIOR VANTAGE POINT, LLC; ADDIT, LLC;
QUALITY REVIEW, LLC; JOHN W. DWYER; CAPITAL
FUNDING GROUP, INC.; CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC;
CSCV HOLDINGS, LLC; ARKANSAS SNF OPERATIONS
ACQUISITION, LLC; ARKANSAS NURSING HOME
ACQUISITION, LLC; CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC;
LANA ROGERS, in her capacity as Administrator
of Pointer Trail Health and Rehabilitation, LLC;
JOHN DOES 1-5; UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS; POINTER
TRAIL HEALTH AND REHABILITATION; POINTER TRAIL
HOLDINGS, LLC
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
(Doc. 38) and supporting Memorandum Brief (Doc. 39), Defendants’
(except
Column
Response
(Doc.
Notice
of
Guaranteed
45),
LLC,
Plaintiff’s
Supplemental
Authority
hereinafter
Reply
(Doc.
(Doc.
50),
“Defendants”)
47),
Plaintiff’s
and
Defendants’
Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 53).
For the
reasons reflected herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 38)
Page 1 of 5
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and this case is remanded
to the Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas.
I.
Background
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the
Circuit Court of Crawford County, Arkansas, alleging negligence,
medical malpractice, common law civil conspiracy, violations of
certain Arkansas statutes protecting the rights of nursing home
residents,
and
individual
Defendants,
facilities.
separate
claims
who
of
were
negligence
the
against
Administrators
of
the
the
(See Doc. 5 ¶¶ 57-143).
On January 18, 2013, Defendants jointly filed a Notice of
Removal (Doc. 1) claiming entitlement to removal under 28 U.S.C.
§
1331
and
conspiracy
argued
1441(b)
claim
alleging
raised
Plaintiff’s
civil
a
Plaintiff’s
stated
federal
conspiracy
claim
state
issue.
alleged
conspired to defraud HUD, Medicare, and Medicaid.
law
civil
Defendants
Defendants
Defendants
argued that because Plaintiff must prove an underlying wrongful
act to establish a civil conspiracy, she must prove that the
Defendants violated Federal laws and regulations regarding HUD
financing, Medicare, and/or Medicaid and therefore her claim for
civil conspiracy necessarily raised a stated federal issue.
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff moved to remand the case to
state
court
arguing
jurisdiction
is
lacking
under
28
U.S.C.
§ 1331 because no federal question is presented in Plaintiff’s
Page 2 of 5
properly-pleaded civil conspiracy claim,
jurisdiction
is
not
created
merely
programs or agencies in a pleading.
and federal question
by
mentioning
Federal
Should the Court find a
federal question, Plaintiff alternatively moved for the Court to
sever and remand all other claims.
Plaintiff also moved for an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and a hearing on
her motion to remand.
II.
Discussion
“[F]ederal-question
jurisdiction
will
lie
over
state-law
claims that implicate significant federal issues.”
Grable &
Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing,
545
U.S.
308,
312
(2005).
The
exercise
of
subject-matter
jurisdiction over state law claims “demands not only a contested
federal
issue,
but
federal
interest
a
in
substantial
claiming
inherent in a federal forum.”
one,
the
indicating
advantages
a
thought
serious
to
be
Id. at 313.
Defendants specifically argued that their alleged wrongful
conduct under Federal statutes and regulations constitutes an
essential
claim.
element
of
Plaintiff’s
state
law
civil
conspiracy
Defendants contend that in order for Plaintiff to prove
her civil conspiracy claim she is required to prove violations
of certain federal statute and regulations.
that
the
referenced
paragraphs,
two
out
of
Plaintiff argued
the
nearly
150
paragraphs comprising her complaint, merely outline the manner
Page 3 of 5
in which the Defendants funded the purchase and operation of
their facilities, not that the funding itself was a violation of
federal statutes and regulations.
(Doc. 39 at 6).
Plaintiff
argues the references to HUD, Medicare, and Medicaid cannot be
fairly
read
to
raise
a
question
regarding
compliance
with
federal law.
The
Court
finds
that
the
plain
language
of
the
civil
conspiracy claim does not allege any improper obtaining of funds
from HUD, Medicaid, and Medicare programs.
wrongful
conduct
intentional
in
conspiracy
the
to
civil
Instead, the alleged
conspiracy
structure
and
claim
funnel
is
the
proceeds
for
operations and patient care into lease and fee arrangements with
various
leave
affiliated
entities,
with
insufficient
operating
funds,
substantive
measure
injuries.
wrongful
“The
conduct
will
turn
on
knowledge
that
foreseeably
what
of
this
resulting
Defendants’
Defendants
federal money and why, not how they got it.”
would
in
allegedly
did
with
the
Slater v. Capital
SeniorCare Ventures, LLC, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00447-DPM (E.D.
Ark. April 4, 2013) (citing Compare Gaming Corp. of America v.
Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 551 (8th Cir. 1996).
The fact
that Defendants obtained federal funding is incidental to the
civil
conspiracy
claim;
no
contested
issue arises from the same.
Page 4 of 5
or
substantial
federal
Resolving all doubts in favor of remand to preserve the
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities, any federal issues present are not disputed
enough
or
substantial
jurisdiction.
Iowa
Power
enough
to
support
federal
question
Slater, 5:12-cv-00447-DPM, at 2. (citing Central
Co-op.
v.
Midwest
Independent
Transmission
Cooperative, 561 F3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009).
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 38) is GRANTED in part
and
DENIED
in
part.
Plaintiff’s
request
to
have
this
case
remanded is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s request for a hearing on her
motion to remand is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff’s request for
attorney fees and costs in pursuit of this motion is DENIED.
Separate Defendant Column Guaranteed, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 7) remains pending for the State court to resolve.
case
shall
be
remanded
forthwith
to
the
Circuit
Court
This
of
Crawford County, Arkansas.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2013.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge
Page 5 of 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.